The International Journal of Restorative Justice

Jennifer J. LlewellynJennifer J. Llewellyn is the Yogis and Keddy Chair in Human Rights Law and Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Brenda MorrisonBrenda Morrison is Associate Professor of Criminology and Director of the Centre for Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. Contact author: jennifer.llewellyn@dal.ca. Disclosure Statement: There are no financial conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Krystal Glowatski, PhD candidate and research assistant, for proofreading and helping with referencing many of the papers in this Special Issue.

The human services are fraught with history of failure related to grasping oversimplified, across-the-board solutions that are expected to work in all situations for all groups of people. This article reviews some of the long-standing and current challenges for governance of programmes in maintaining cultures that safeguard restorative and responsive standards, principles and values, thereby amplifying and enhancing their centrality to relational engagement within families, groups, communities and organisations. Despite their potential for helping groups of people grapple with the complex dynamics that impact their lives, restorative justice approaches are seen as no less vulnerable to being whittled down to technical routines through practitioner and sponsor colonisation than other practices. This article explores some of the ways culture can work to erode and support the achievement of restorative standards, and why restorative justice and regulation that is responsive to the ongoing experiences of affected persons offers unique paths forward for achieving justice. Included in this exploration are the ways that moral panic and top-down, command-and-control management narrow relational approaches to tackling complex problems and protect interests that reproduce social and economic inequality.

Gale BurfordGale Burford is Emeritus Professor of Social Work, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA. Contact author: gburford@uvm.edu. Disclosure statement: There are no financial conflicts of interest.

Feminists have viewed the implementation of restorative practices warily, particularly in the context of gender-based harms. Concerns include the devaluing of gender-based harms, the reprivatisation of violence against women and the inability of restorative practitioners to guarantee safety for people subjected to abuse. But this article will argue that restorative justice can be a uniquely feminist practice, growing out of the same mistrust of state-based systems and engagement of the community that animated the early feminist movement. Although some caution is warranted, restorative justice serves the feminist goals of amplifying women’s voices, fostering women’s autonomy and empowerment, engaging community, avoiding gender essentialism and employing an intersectional analysis, transforming patriarchal structures and ending violence against women.

Leigh GoodmarkLeigh Goodmark is Professor of Law and Director of the Gender Violence Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Baltimore, USA. Contact author: lgoodmark@law.umaryland.edu.

The purpose of this article is to examine restorative approaches to campus sexual harm. A restorative response may provide support and validation for survivors, a pathway for personal change for those who cause sexual harm, and assist in changing campus culture. The article addresses three significant challenges to developing a restorative response. The first challenge is the influence of a pervasive ideology that I refer to as crime logic. A second challenge is the need for an intersectional response that addresses the potential for bias in decisions by campus administrators and restorative justice practitioners. The third challenge is to develop restorative approaches for circumstances in which a victim/perpetrator dyad is not appropriate.

Donna CokerDonna Coker is Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law, Miami, USA. Contact author: dcoker@law.miami.edu.

Drawing upon Gert Biesta’s concept of the learnification of education, we maintain that a meaningful purpose for Canadian schools has been lost. We demonstrate that the very fact of relationship is limited in curricula. The absence of relationality enables the continued privilege of normative identities. A restorative approach, based on asking who is being educated, could repurpose schooling. We draw upon examples from literature, current political events and our classroom-based research to illustrate how conflict dialogue, based on relational pedagogy, offers one path for a restorative approach. We conclude that conflict dialogue provides opportunities to engage diverse students in inclusive curricular experiences. Such a restorative approach exposes and explores the who of education for the purpose of promoting positive social conditions that allow for human flourishing.

Kristina R. LlewellynKristina R. Llewellyn is an Associate Professor in Social Development Studies at Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.

Christina ParkerChristina Parker is an Assistant Professor in Social Development Studies at Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Contact author: kristina.llewellyn@uwaterloo.ca.

The dialectic of the ‘personal is political’ is starkly evident in the lives of abused and neglected children and their families involved with child protection services. State intervention into families renders private matters into public issues. Restorative approaches in the child protection context offer a vital test of their efficacy in reshaping family and family-state relationships. Drawing upon the author’s experience as a young feminist and child protection worker, this article identifies three dynamics of the restorative dialectic: children’s testimony, women’s responsibilisation and child validation. A case study of a sexually abused teen demonstrates how the restorative process of family group conferencing transforms these dynamics. Children’s testimony of giving evidence in court becomes speaking for/speaking with; women blaming becomes collective responsibilisation; and child protectionism becomes validation of children and their cultural heritage. Together these movements uphold a relational approach to restorative justice that nudges norms toward greater equity.

Joan PennellJoan Pennell is Professor Emerita with the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA. Contact author: jpennell@ncsu.edu. Funding: The Newfoundland & Labrador implementation research was supported by Health Canada [formerly Health & Welfare], Family Violence Prevention Division; Justice Canada, Discretionary Funds Section; Solicitor General of Canada; and Labrador Inuit Health Commission. The North Carolina work was supported by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services. Disclosure Statement: There are no financial conflicts of interest. Geolocation: The family group conference example is from Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Mary E. McNally MSc, DDS, MAMary E. McNally, MSc, DDS, MA, is a Professor at Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry in Halifax Nova Scotia, Canada. Contact author: mary.mcnally@dal.ca. Acknowledgement: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the Dalhousie University Dentistry Class of 2015 whose experiences are providing a foundation from which others may learn and benefit.

Dr Kelly J. StockdaleKelly J. Stockdale, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Psychological and Social Sciences, York St. John University, York (UK). Contact author: k.stockdale@yorksj.ac.uk.